Hal Finney,
Thanks for the thought.  I know that there is something instead of nothing
by using Descartes reasoning.  (From
http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm)  "The only
thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt
that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere
(viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he
existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very
beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think
therefore I am)."

I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing.  Perhaps I
don't understand what you mean by "nothing."  By "nothing" I mean  no thing,
not even empty space.

In other words, it is conceivable to me that the multiverse need not exist.
Yet it does.  Why?  This seems inherently unanswerable.

Norman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?


> How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead
> of nothing?  Maybe there could be both something and nothing.  Or maybe
> the existence of "nothing" is consistent with our own experiences.
>
> I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question
> to have meaning in its simple form.  It's easy to put words together,
> but not all gramatically correct sentences are meaningful.
>
> Hal Finney
>
>


Reply via email to